A Fellow Lighter

No.. work for it.

Okay, so then this is a question of epistemology, yes? Like how do I know that what I experience as red is what you experience as red? Obviously, this I cannot learn via language due to the fact that it is inductive itself. It may very well be the case that what you experience as red is what I actually experience as orange, but we will both call it red simply because that's how we were taught to make the particular experience of a peculiar colour relatable. Sensibility and relatability aren't the same thing, inherently. Hence anything taught through language is bound to be inductive and conceptual in its own accord. However, I don't believe that any of that affects or somehow touches on the matter of what we consider perception. We never learn what the thing is when we ask "What is that?" We only learn how to make it relatable, however the posteriori is never actually translated, translation occurs only at the intuitive level that what was once simply truth itself has become a subject of language/discussion. What was once purely truth has become the dogma that we call 'object'. The meaning lies in the idea itself. All sciences are the sciences of ideas. So long as the idea of the truth serves well then it is quite rational to believe in it. The posteriori is not induced, it is only the idea literally being conceived in the mind, the idea of what the posteriori is.

How is space a posterior? Aren't these simply priori intuitions one uses to account and calculate your day-to-day operations?

The problem is just this.. how does one account for experience without first adapting a belief? Even science itself is based on a belief, and that is the belief of physical matter and space. I think you referred to such things as priori intuitions. I mean do you see the problem, here. In figuring things out this ability is of course bound in conceptualising everything and having to accept some of these concepts as truth for the sake of causation and experience.

Sounds about right. Although, I wish we could have an extensive discussion about proof. Seriously, what exactly constitutes as proof? Because if we're talking in terms of scientific experiments, then yes, something can be proven for as long as it's idea (the idea of what the thing is X) holds against the tides of truth.

I mean this substance.. the "former"

Ah.. I understand perfectly here what you mean. Yes, the idea that there is something outside direct experience is, in its own sense, empty and fictional. So you consider beliefs to be the opposite of truth? Alright, I see what mean. Bound? You mean because we're always thinking about things in trying to figure out what's what? I don't know if you're using the term "Bound" to assert a powerlessness in the matter, as if there's nothing we can do but believe.

This isn't advice on how to shift from negative to positive. This is advice on sticking to what serves you. Ultimately, whether negative or positive, you're using the same power every distinguishable being in the universe uses.. and that power is love. So unless it truly does bother you that you're using negative emotion to advance yourself, I wouldn't recommend switching it. If it serves you then let it serve you. If it doesn't serve you then let it go and try something new. Same power, though ?

Well, maybe saying the belief is empty isn't exactly the way to put it. I mean can't we at least make the argument that the belief is filled with experience, such as the trial and error of day-to-day life, in that it is exactly this experience that renders it substantial rather than empty? For instance, I have never been to Australia, though I've never actually walked the land I do believe that it has dry land and surrounded by the ocean. This is a rational belief based on my experience with my continent. ? The cave bid actually gets me every time .. quite typical isn't it, or should I say inevitable for one who's on the awakening path? But anyway, my argument would boil down to this: though the “all is imagination lens" immediately implies a fantastical reality about it, perhaps we shouldn't be all to quick as to say this imagination is equivalent to the meaninglessness of.. let's say.. a day dream, a fantasy yeah? That nothing worth learning or worth attending (if I may put it so) can be found from it. So much so that it would be better for the one seeking knowledge to tend to nothing in that dark empty cave. If if imagination can have substance, though as subtle or imperceptible as a stream of radio waves then this faculty we call imagination has a function more to it then the simple making of distinctions for the sake of human (or animal) operation, perhaps it's that medium of expression, that mode of consciousness that we learn of the innate power of 'existence'. That power that is behind all these happenings/phenomena we call our existence. I don't know if I'm being sound here, tell me what you think.

I'm not gonna lie, learning the truths I'm learning.. it genuinely overwhelms me. My only calm is meditation. But then I just end up always wanting to meditate, to isolate.. everyone suddenly talks too much, I find. I talk too much, and think too much, I also find. And really I'm just looking for that peace within me, that peace of mind to make my living space. The world seems more and more chaotic, and it's my job to learn how it's all love, all of it. I find it overwhelming. I just want to meditate forever, but I know I have responsibilities to take care of before I can rest...

I'm an instrument of creation. Literally, I am a world maker. But the only way for me to realise my potential is for me to stay true to myself - my vibration, and what it means to be me. The importance of this I sincerely cannot express. But I can feel it, and somehow I can see it. It's as though life is literally one big test - a test of will - for everyone. The test is to stay true to yourself: live your truth. And watch what you say, everything uttered is what you speak into existence. If you say that life is evil, then you've chosen your stand with the agents of chaos. If you say life is beautiful then you've chosen your stand with the agents of light. Watch your mouth, only say what you mean, and always mean what you say. It's the only way to realise your potential as a world maker, regardless of whether that world is a heaven or hell.

You don't have to repeat anything. You could just copy and paste the post where you believe you've already given me an example. We've covered so much it's quite possible that I may have overlooked it or I'm failing to recall it. But I get it, I've exhausted your patience. I was particularly interested in the above post where you mention a intuition that one does not imagine but instead it imagines you. I was only wondering if you had meant that to be an alternative for the duality of “sensible intuition” such as the dragon you had mentioned or the chair in the living room, and the “priori intuition” such as space, time, and causality. This is the duality that I wanted to know if you were referring to. And that the collapse of this duality through the elimination of distinction, somehow leaves the possibility of there being an intuition that somehow imagines us.

You lost me. What are these things that without which would leave consciousness to be nondual and all things impossible? What are “sensible intuitions”? Can you give an example?

So let's jump back to this here post. Is there above claim your claim for there being a duality in existence/knowledge?

Yes.., well put. I see it, my friend.

Hmm.. I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Negation is an act, let alone, a response, but how does one imagine it? Unless you use the term negation synonymously with omission then yes, I agree. One cannot omit the truth of existence.

@Reciprocality I don't know, I mean I'm pretty sure that babies use instincts, not concepts, to navigate.

Precisely because it is absolute. Meaning you will find nothing outside of it. Babies too have awareness, right? And they cannot conceptualise anything, yet they know that which they know, whatever it is.

Only because nothing has actually ever been proven, by anyone. Sure, ideas have been proven as far as their modeling of the universe goes, but things in themselves, like matter or substance or an actual object, these supposed "things" have never been proven, due to the transitive and dissipative “structure" of the universe.

So necessary in the sense of identity - is that what you're saying?

Sorry, I had misread this. Now this is interesting. But look, not that I'm negating the truth of existence or anything, I just have to ask.. necessary for what, exactly? You mention that sensibility is necessary in order for to operate. So can you do the same with "the absolute necessity of existence", what exactly renders it necessary according to you?

If you yourself do not believe in the ideas you're presenting on this thread, and are only posing questions for the mere sake of arguing, then yes I'll amply stop discussing this topic with you. But if you're most sincere in your quest of learning of the workings of consciousness then let's discuss away, there's nothing to lose and much to gain from each other.

Precisely, knowledge is all there is, it is this knowledge (awareness) that cannot be placed in the box of conception that I would refer to as nondual. As I've said, the contingent is imagination. We may properly discuss this now if you wish. How are we completely different? I sincerely ask out of curiosity, not to argue. Where has this complete difference been established? So that one may know of it.

See, this is the problem with philosophy: that a thing in itself cannot be used to prove itself. Why must you consider anything in the first place in order for you to tell me that you are aware without the need for reason? Did your existence come about your ability to reason?

The title of your thread states: “Most things are imagined.” But if you let me, I'll prove to you that All things are in fact imagined.